[[But it is puzzling that an undirected process, natural selection, would lead to “programmed cell death.”]]
Especially when it comes to trying to get that programmed death from chemical arrangements.
I also find it odd that supposedly, DNA/RNA supposedly arose, yet in order to do so, there would have to be billions of mistakes witnessed in species- many billions- trillions perhaps, yet all we find are compelted codes in optimum working order (well, not really optimimum- what we find is that when tracign mTDNA back it gets puerer and purer- just hte oppositie for what Macroevolution would have doen if tryign to ‘perfect’ DNA, and it’s fully inline with hte biblical account where man and woman were created optimum, and degraded over time)
It does however seem odd that a species which lives a very long time, woudl then ‘feel the need’ to evolve programmed cell death to such a drastic shortneing of life. If nothign but propogation of the species’ is what drives species ‘evolving’. then it woudl seem that something that is more optimimum, somethign that lives a very very long time, would be quite fit, and htus ‘wish’ to pass along it’s gene code for as long as possible instead of ‘feeling the need’ to evolve programmed cell death
The development of instincts in species also seems to be at odds with chemical to man macroevolution- while it might be claiemd and hsown that thinking species, reacting species can react to environmental cues in order to learn from, and protect the species- it can’t be argued that simple chemical arrangements are capable of that, Yet we’re to beleive that rapid adaption resulted from chemicals all ythe way up to man. Either nature is forward looking, and capable of anticipating problems related to species surivival, or soem true intelligence forknew and anticipated and designed fully functional metainfo to adjust on the fly as needed
The struggle to survive is reasonable in lower organisms, altruism is not.